Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

Definitely the efforts on the radar and IP development is never a waste.

But my Q was on using the EMB145 as a platform since huge effort and money was spent on it and all the work on the platform integration is fully useless once A330 is chosen for next set. As per chaiwallah, all this export talk was just talk to avoid Qs on the platform change after just 3 airframes since all the mentioned "enquiries" are very basic stuff and not really worth talking about anything concrete. Also, the Q the interested parties are asking is why the EMB145 if host country itself is changing the platform and genuinue worry on support front

Your chaiwallah is just needlessly distracting. IAF was deeply skeptical of EMB-145 program and as usual there were late changes. However the IAF program team and the DDO team ran a tight ship and got a functional program. So the IAF now, despite internal skepticism (old habit) and happy with the AEWACS is giving DRDO this bigger full fledged program. Its that straightforward. Three AEW&C in IAF service will require thirty year support so customer concerns on this score are not germaine. The bigger issue is finamcing and poltics. India is a novice there and that is the main stumbling bloc for exports.

The DRDO AWACS with A330 and 360 degree surveillance will undoubtedly have better performance and better endurance. However, this is going to take atleast 5-7 years to get to production. And there are the vagaries of development timelines, budgets and procurement that dog all defence procurement and development projects. EMB AEW&C is something we have now. It has been tested and qualified and delivered to IAF. Till the AWACS gets up and running, we need to keep getting atleast one or two of these babies every year.

Karan M wrote:Exports are fine.. and the IAF can use it too.. I would have liked more picket fence AWACS too.But the issue is this, is the effort wasted?Not really, IAF is taking all 3 AEW&C aircraft as versus the original plan for 2.Plus AWACS India is now committed with 6 aircraft order noted.These will likely use new DRDO GaN modules and will significantly outperform the Phalcons (hopefully IAF has asked for this).As such of our planned fifteen strong AWACS fleet, at least 12 will be capable of handling LO & VLO threats into the future. The 300 km ranged AEW&CS can be used against TSPAF to back up the Mirage, MiG-29, Jag fleets with a long ranged sensor. That will give a 100 km range against 0.1 Sq Mtr targets, respectable against LO if not very LO of the kind Khan has. So even the AEW&CS should be good against future PAF J-31 etc.In terms of where the AEW&CS radar has taken us... we have 8 Arudhra MPR, some 18 Ashwini on order as well.The sensor integration and data fusion part has led to CABS/LRDE getting an order for a MPA program for the Coast Guard - 6 mission suites.

Thanks Karan for the detailed post. I am assuming the choice of 3 is related to EMB 145 platform endurance. Do you know?

in general IAF+IA wants the kind of eqpt khan/france/israel has but with indian budget constraints its not possible - not in the numbers that will make a difference against china.

russia can mostly no longer deliver khan type eqpt and the after sales SLA even for good money.

the only alternative is to develop our own kit for all needs even if its 75% as good as khan, its good enough to deal with china.this is way more hard work than importing well proven products because the services have to partner with development agency and go through the whole trials and fixing process, than just sent a few instructors to OEM for training.

the khan forces have large program offices like iirc wright patterson afb (of proj blue book fame) where deputed officers run the interface and joint work with the OEMs.

just like sections of our youth, our services have learnt part of what the west does but not the full story of what makes the western model effective.

Vivek K wrote:Karan 3 against TSPAF will not cut it. Given the downtime of all equipment or overhaul requirements, and 24/7 coverage requirements, it would have helped to have a couple more.

Vivek, the IAF wants 2 more Phalcons and with these three, it will have 8 AWACS, till the 6 more larger DRDO AWACS come in. But you guys have a valid point, buying two more AWACS of the smaller kind, will be very useful.

As a project, if we include total costs including R&D, procuring just 3 AEW&C will result in a net loss. Its basics of mass manufacturing. We don't setup an assembly line to make 3 cars. This is spectacular short-sightedness from the IAF, not to mention a callous disregard for supporting a homegrown MIC. The minuscule orders for Arjun by the IA come to mind.

^^ This was what i was asking originally about why not continue the orders and recover the huge costs put into customising a platform since very clearly, the bigger AWACs is still a very long time away going by the tech hurdles to cross.

I wonder if it has to do with the bribery allegations too where EMB i sort of blacklisted now.

India's Ministry of Defence (MoD) has put on hold the purchase of two intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance (ISTAR) aircraft from Raytheon of the United States, due to internal wrangling between the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO) over which of the two should be the technical evaluator, according to a source in the MoD.

The cost for the two aircraft was to be about $1 billion, with payment structured around the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.

"The thinking here [of the MoD] is that the two agencies — DRDO and IAF — should sort out the issue and only then we proceed towards purchasing the two ISTAR aircraft," the source said.

The eventual designated agency will be responsible for deciding which software and other equipment should be used and how to procure it.

The Dear Lord help us! Why does the DRDO have to have a veto over every defence acquisition when it rarely delivers,and on the rare occasions when it does,does so v.v.late after experiencing huge cost over-runs? The list of its failure outnumber its successes and the services have to have eqpt. with them to wage and win a war. It is the duty of the MOD to establish a timeframe for such decisions and when there is a stalemate be decisive in the interests of the nation.The key point to be remembered is that the DRDO do not fight wars! It is the services who do and they should have the final judgement as later on they will have to bear the responsibility of the outcome of the war.

IN those excellent books on the IN's history by V.Adm.Hiranandani,the manner in which the IN has scored so much success in indigenisation is because it is the "boss" of everything designed,developed and built by the DPSUs with an in-house naval design establishment at NHQ.The IA and IAF have nothing similar.They should adopt the IN's lead and the MOD should rightly place establishments like the ADA UNDER IAF control.That way,there will be no controversy about the specs of aircraft and helos,where the IAF look down upon the efforts of the ADA who sneer at the IAF's lust for firang fighters,et al.Likewise the IA should be in overall charge of design/dev of all AVs.Big-belly babus pushing papers at snail's pace in the MOD aren't by any means experts to decide on technical issues either.

Given the time required for choosing a platform, negotiations, contract, signature, delivery, modifications and testing, it's very possible that IAF may order another tranche of 3 EMB145s. Otherwise it won't see a new platform another 5-10 years from today.

Philip wrote:The Dear Lord help us! Why does the DRDO have to have a veto over every defence acquisition when it rarely delivers,and on the rare occasions when it does,does so v.v.late after experiencing huge cost over-runs? The list of its failure outnumber its successes and the services have to have eqpt. with them to wage and win a war. It is the duty of the MOD to establish a timeframe for such decisions and when there is a stalemate be decisive in the interests of the nation.The key point to be remembered is that the DRDO do not fight wars! It is the services who do and they should have the final judgement as later on they will have to bear the responsibility of the outcome of the war.

IN those excellent books on the IN's history by V.Adm.Hiranandani,the manner in which the IN has scored so much success in indigenisation is because it is the "boss" of everything designed,developed and built by the DPSUs with an in-house naval design establishment at NHQ.The IA and IAF have nothing similar.They should adopt the IN's lead and the MOD should rightly place establishments like the ADA UNDER IAF control.That way,there will be no controversy about the specs of aircraft and helos,where the IAF look down upon the efforts of the ADA who sneer at the IAF's lust for firang fighters,et al.Likewise the IA should be in overall charge of design/dev of all AVs.Big-belly babus pushing papers at snail's pace in the MOD aren't by any means experts to decide on technical issues either.

Not always. EMB-145 AEW&C is followed by Project India.Rohini is followed by Ashwini.Aslesha by Aslesha Mk2R118 by DR118...

many such examples.

Issue is more that IAF/IN/IA expect nothing but the best (as versus good enough) and that mean's we keep jumping programs. In such a milieu, as pointed out, we should aggressively market the Mk1 programs. These themselves are often state of the art in key respects (not that chap's who don't track these programs would have any clue) and can land export orders.

The Brahmos may be heavy, large and what not. Its still leading in many features and destructive.The Akash may not have fancy seekers & is large, but it is also very capable, highly automated & cost effective.Pinaka may not come (yet) with some end game guidance. But as a MLRS it performs well & can easily boost firepower far more than bog standard older gen Russian/PRC MLRS which come with so many strings attached & poor product quality.

Apart from the LCA which is seeing yet more of the IAF's usual import-import-import antics via the single engine fighter, and the Arjun imbroglio, we can reasonably be more confident about the rest of the MIC advancing via regular program

"seems better" is the key thing. if we take a look at J-10 orderbook and even 123 unit order is not so great.the 123 unit orderbook won't be sufficient to develop or deploy multiple classes of radars or engines f.e. (combining indigenous + imports) as has been done on the j-10. low platform orders will automatically impact development of key subsystems, same way low Arjun orders meant development of local GMS was stopped, and stuff like engines, transmissions, gun control, gunners sight were all dropped or put in abeyance till "next program" came. without LCA mk2, and mk1A going to some israeli order, what happens to Uttam? Wait till AMCA comes? this is the sort of stuff that happens.

this is the reason why pvt sector did not want to take over LCA from HAL and even HAL is addicted to screwdriver-in-india policy. why bother going to all the trouble to set up a local line & fix it, and all that when IAF is likely to promptly order some import & then it comes nice in a box, with CKD, SKD etc with some TOT thrown in for good measure and will be more profitable for HAL as well.

Karan M wrote:"seems better" is the key thing. if we take a look at J-10 orderbook and even 123 unit order is not so great.the 123 unit orderbook won't be sufficient to develop or deploy multiple classes of radars or engines f.e. (combining indigenous + imports) as has been done on the j-10. low platform orders will automatically impact development of key subsystems, same way low Arjun orders meant development of local GMS was stopped, and stuff like engines, transmissions, gun control, gunners sight were all dropped or put in abeyance till "next program" came. without LCA mk2, and mk1A going to some israeli order, what happens to Uttam? Wait till AMCA comes? this is the sort of stuff that happens.

this is the reason why pvt sector did not want to take over LCA from HAL and even HAL is addicted to screwdriver-in-india policy. why bother going to all the trouble to set up a local line & fix it, and all that when IAF is likely to promptly order some import & then it comes nice in a box, with CKD, SKD etc with some TOT thrown in for good measure and will be more profitable for HAL as well.

True enough, and frankly one hopes that the mk1a isnt a deliberate untobtanium type setup that takes 7-10 years to develop. But I'm secretly hoping that we see another order of 60 birds foc std.

Having said that, can't see why uttam development can't continue... There are plenty of IAF/IN birds that will need mlu including the fleet of LCA, mig29k and even potentially MKI and FGFA.

^^^The challenge for Uttam being integrated on a foreign platform is of OEM and their country's compliance. Forget about US products like the F-16s -- even the Israelis weren't allowed.

Besides, the contracts with OEM are very restrictive. One can't do as they please with the said platform. Any new features added could become the property of the OEM (or their government's). There was an article where HAL had modified Jags and they were surprised to learn that in the original contract The British reserved the rights to apply those mods on other Jaguar fleets without authorization by or compensation to HAL.

yes vested interests galore. the average forum also sees comedians who jump up and down screaming about the next best thing and how importing f-solah wagehra will automatically make things ok. anyone speaking any sense about how imports only perpetuate the IAFs dysfunction will be ignored. no aircraft the IAF takes can be ultra modern in terms of kinematics or pure performance. you buy the FGFA, there is a J-20 which can probably outrange it. you buy the JSF, the J-11 is likely more maneuverable in some corner of the envelope.

what keeps aircraft and systems current is constant weapons & avionics upgrades. with imports with closely integrated systems like the F-35 or the Rafale, integrating third party systems is easier said than done. what comes with the aircraft is also not optimal - eg SAP-518 with the Su-30 MKI available years after development & even then its not a great answer. so forget about adding third party items easily either, EL-8222 on Su-30.

this is why the LCA is so crucial. all the hilarity about it not meeting this ASR or that ASR.. as if the Jaguar met all ASR or the MiG-29 or any of our purchases including the Sukhoi. it only met some of its so called ASRs a couple of years back when the IAF version radar finally entered service after many years of usage, fixes and OEM development.

the LCA can constantly be upgraded & brought upto speed with new sensors, weapons, pods..otherwise run after france or US or russia for "approval" because we don't know what extra weight on station 3 will do to the structure and we can't replace mission computer 2 on the primary bus, because it will count as an unsanctioned major modification and void the warranty.

unfortunately, this stuff above is understood mostly by the IAF teams deputed to R&D or OEMs who see the advantages first hand. in contrast, the foreign dudes waltz in with fancy brochures and claims of TOT and we get stuck in an endless cycle of imports.

IAF then asks for the latest and bestest on the LCA, HAL etc promise the moon and again, development creeps up. it can induct upgraded mirages and mig-29s with slotted array radars. but the LCA Mk1A should have AESA. this constant fixation on an ultra premium Mk2, Mk1A, Mk3 whatever means endless development.

thankfully, the cycle is being broken in many of the subsystem areas but we need to learn from the PRC who build a bunch of each type, then move to the next.

Russians price gouging, as always. Since TASL is going to build the C-295s sometime, might as well mount the EL/M 2090 on those platforms. The radar has been tested on the C-295 anyway, so there would not be any airframe qualification costs.

Chinmay wrote:Russians price gouging, as always. Since TASL is going to build the C-295s sometime, might as well mount the EL/M 2090 on those platforms. The radar has been tested on the C-295 anyway, so there would not be any airframe qualification costs.

Just because a platform may be able to incorporate a sensor doesn't make it an alternative to another option. Would a similar aperture, similar power radar mounted on a C-295 match the same performance and range/time-on-station requirements the current setup provides to the IAF? What about growth?

Chinmay wrote:Russians price gouging, as always. Since TASL is going to build the C-295s sometime, might as well mount the EL/M 2090 on those platforms. The radar has been tested on the C-295 anyway, so there would not be any airframe qualification costs.

C-295 are too small for Phalcon, the C-295 based AEW would be a 360* equivalent of DRDO AEW&C and not a match for Phalcon based on a bigger platform

If the IL-76 price is not comfortable then the next best choice should be A-330 as the higher requirement could bring the cost down to help the DRDO program also

Just because a platform may be able to incorporate a sensor doesn't make it an alternative to another option. Would a perspective similar aperture, similar power radar mounted on a C-295 match the same performance and range/time-on-station requirements the current setup provides to the IAF? What about growth?

Fair point, but the alternative is to shell out three times the money for the existing platform. So either we pay a lot more, or get a more modern, albeit less capable platform which could have higher uptimes.

The A330 will require qualification costs to be paid for the Phalcon, so that is an unwise proposition IMO

If the cost of buying and maintaining high availability of the Il-76 is too high, it may be best to work with Israel to integrate this on a used commercial air frame, possibly the same type that India plans on using for its future indigenous effort. It will provide some valuable experience that could be useful for future projects and the larger available pool of spares and technical help of a commercial airliner can bring life cycle cost savings and improve readiness.

only 4 were made, but the reopening of the KC767 for 100s of refuelers for USAF means this plane has a guaranteed life of 5 decades from now with new avionics and engines.

and the rotodome test data and structural mods are all parked in Boeing. but boeing is already selling the wedgetail solution on 737 and would have no interest in a one off project for some half dozen airframes...they might be willing to outsource the work, with the reqd drawings to some 3rd party in usa or israel if we ask though